There are two ways to look at it:
1)It’s a contest between (a) holding a few key staffers, some with decades in the union, accountable for using abusive tactics and (b) pushing it under the rug, purging dissidents, and “focusing” on their campaigns. A situation similar to the way a lot of organizations deal with sexual harassment: “lose the talented personnel, or just try to push forward and hope it doesn’t reoccur.”
2) The game and pink sheeting were tools that brought UH! out of some dark years over the last 20 years. They helped organizers root out corrupt and mobbed up locals. They thinned the herd in a way that left only the most militant,dedicated, and (especially) obedient players on the field. Now these tactics are used to keep workers and staffers motivated and feeling engaged without actually being involved in any of the creative process or decision making behind the campaigns. And by MANDATING that all campaign volunteers and staffers share their personal histories and submit to a rigorous self-critique, the union can monitor who they are allowing to participate and create a patronizing culture of reliance on leads (for approval, for advice, for direction, for instructions) amongst those involved. So what you get is a feudal system that produces large public actions, top-bottom groupthink, and very reliable union elections.

The first option is hard, but manageable. It’s also BS. The second option is the tragic reality that the labor and progressive community really needs to start having a dialogue about, a dialogue that it may not yet be capable of having.